I just need a definition of Bow Down. Does it require a bow from the waist to lower your head beneath his like the bow that B. Hussein Obama did for King Faisal? Or does it require a complete prostration of the body and head as the muslims must do down at the mosque? The whole Bloggingheads was as witty as I've ever seen one. So your quip about bowing to Our King will be overlooked. But let's all try not to do it again. Incidentally, the bow expressing the attitude of the body and its head IS what the word worship refers to.

Chip... I saw a link (heck, was it here?) to a study that showed that people who made "green" purchases were more dishonest... perhaps because they felt they'd purchased their virtue so other stuff didn't count.

Entirely likely that ethan would nick your welcome mat and consider it not a crime because ethan has the right and moral ideas... certainly those ideas justify jubilation at the mind-picture of violence against someone he doesn't like... a welcome mat is small change.

Ethan...You are trying to get the Professor to delete you to orove a point? Right? No answer will be a confirmation. Why not say something about todays subject? We will listen and argue your favorite points with you.that is why free speech is done here. Try it, you might like it.

She looks pretty happy. I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds this to be amusing, and can still have a good day.

I know Obama's 'peace' really means tremendous suffering for millions of good people, but anger is only so productive. Ethan and others can stay angry. Althouse... and lot of other people, are choosing to laugh.

President Obama: winner of the Gold Medal of Peace at the Chicago 2016 games!

You can't keep saying "The prize has been meaningless ever since X got one." Because then you have to explain why you are unable to talk about anything else.

Oh no, it's the least thing they could have done for Our President, the Rt. Hon. Abraham Delano Fitzgerald Mahatma Obama. I can't wait until the United Nations deifies him so that we can address Him as The Divine Obama.

When weren't they? I certainly never heard a single bad thing about Ghandi until the last couple of years... the charge that he had luck in choosing enemies who would be horrified by the deaths of peaceful people doesn't say anything against *him* so much as for those trying to argue that the same methods will work for people who see killing innocents as a feature.

"does anyone doubt that if the "ethans" of the world had the weapons and opportunity they would shoot all of us in the head?"

Well, yeah, but the vast majority of these butterfingered girls' blouse lefties wouldn't even know which way to point the things much less how to squeeze the triggers, so I'm not too concerned yet.

"will it come to that i wonder? i no longer see any remedy for the rift that has developed."

I don't really see any remedy, either, only deeper and deeper hysteria on their part any time a conservative (or even just a Republican) wins another election.

It's particularly discouraging that they simply cannot seem to brook any sort of non-Leftist sentiment to any degree. Here we have a blog run by a woman who's more or less an Obama-voting liberal -- a law professor from Communist Madison, no less, and the trolls react to her as if she's Michael Savage just because she's not 100% in-the-tank for Barack Obama.

"Well, yeah, but the vast majority of these butterfingered girls' blouse lefties wouldn't even know which way to point the things much less how to squeeze the triggers, so I'm not too concerned yet."

This is my favorite bit of douchebag-conservative sleight of hand.

On the one hand, "libs" are a bunch of effeminate poofters who would squeal with fear at the mere sight of a gun.

On the other hand, all you macho, gun-toting, tea-bagging conservatives who aren't afarid to kill and die for the grand old US of A. . . why you would NEVER harm so much as a hair on Obama's head, and it's liberal slander to even suggest such a thing.

Of course he's a socialist, baby killing tyrant who is actively seeking to destroy this country, and og course the second ammendment was intended to address exactly this situation, but no. . . you guys are a bunch of pussycats, who would NEVER actually do anything violent.

Any violence will come from the left. . . those poodle walking blouse wearers who can't even hold a gun. . .

It's funny, but whenever I have engaged a conservative, either online or in person, over the past five or six years (since before the 2004 election anyway), it is not long before they say something like "I'm not really a conservative. I'm more of a libertarian, independent, free-thinkiong. . ." whatever.

Very few people these days are willing to self-identify as conservatives, period.

Ann's Obama vote is an example of this: conservatives got tired of defending Bush, who was after all indefensible, and were perfectly happy to see a democrat win the election. It took the heat off them.

Conservatives have decided already that Obama is the Worst President Ever, MUCH worse than Bush (who Althouse misses!) This hardly strikes me as an "independent" opinion; it sure seems like her vote provided just enough cover for her to say "I voted for him, and even I am disappointed in him!"

In short, it's bullshit.

Pretty much all the criticism of Obama from the right is payback for Bush. Which is a shame, because of you look at what the left is saying, there are real criticisms to be made of the Obama administration. But it's drowned out by all the conservative noise.

"So sad, phosphorius and Matt and Ethan have nothing of substance to do in their lives except berate those they want to always disagree with. Their idol Obama must be defended."

If you want a sober analysis of this prize, and what it means and whetehr it's deserved, go read Glenn Greenwald, or Digby, or Atrios. . . or any liberal blogger. Go see what Michael Moore had to say about it at Huffington Post.

But if you want to sing another round of "Obama, the Worst President Ever", then stick around here, because that's all you get.

It is not at all true that leftists and liberals fear guns. The left-most liberal-est person I know, who is still quite even-tempered and rational but for some odd reason keeps a Kerry and Edwards sign on his property, is the most avid hunter that I know. Sort of the opposite of Ted Nugent. Plus he bought one of my frescos, just to show ya how clear-headed he is.

phos - I will do this once - in case you have an adult around to read it and explain it to you.

Once, because if you can't get it this time - and you may have washed too many times in the blatant and basic evilness of left wing thought that the brain damage is irrevocable - the you won't be able to ever get it. Still, here goes:

Very few people these days are willing to self-identify as conservatives, period.

I didn't say all criticism of Obama is payback for Bush, i said all criticism from the right is payback for Bush.

The left criticizes Obama for any number of perfectly of perfectly good reasons: his continuation of various Bush policies concerning wire-tapping and interrogation, his slow movement, or no movement on DADT, and so on. As I say, just check the left leaning blogs. A whole lot of criticism aimed at Obama.

On the right, it's all hysterical shrieks of "Socialism" and "Baby-killer!" and so on. Pure crap.

As to the poll you cite. . . good one! I missed that! So conservatism is the single largest ideological group.

Odd. I didn't realize that there were so many creationists in this country. Or libertarians. Or teabaggers. or Rush Limbaugh fans. Or fans of torture. Or anti-homosexuals. Or secessionists. Or Ron Paul supporters.

I'm a liberal. I vote democrat because it's the better instrument of liberal values.

Okay - reasonable conversation.

Actually you make a truthful and reasonable statement.

But then you have to go and try to make this statement:

The GOP is conservative. Which is why it fucks up so consistently.

If that's where you want to go in a real discussion, then why should others waste good time reading you or giving you the time of day?

I am a conservative politically.I have issues that matter more to me than others - and that number is more than 5, just like you. But I am not a party slave nor an issue slave, and I like to believe that in all honesty - and your statement above seems to mean this - that you are not either.

In the last election in California, I voted for John McCain. But I also voted for 4 Democrats in state and county elections. I am "pro-life" but my Congressman is "pro-choice". Yet I supported him in the primary over a pro-life candidate, because I believed he would be a better Representative for our area and State and the country.

I do not agree with Barack Obama's policies - except when I do. I do not believe for a minute that Obama hates this country - I believe that he - and his wife - both love the Ubited States. They're just wrong. I also do not believe - yet - that he is going to destroy this country's values or freedoms. I believe that our country is stronger than one man - even a President - to substantially weaken it's freedoms. But I may be proven wrong.

So -after 9 months of Obama - I am still willing to praise the good things he does, and to wait and see what else he might have going. 9 months is still early. Gelroge Bush deserved the same benefit of the doubt after his first 9 months - and not the revisionist views that he did nothing about Bin Laden. And most conservatives are willing to give Obama the same benefit of time.

Now that doesn't make me "libertarian" or anything other than a conservative. Just like the largest self-identifying group in that most recent poll.

So, phosphorius - I can respect you for being liberal and wanting to discuss and debate those views.

But I won't respect anyone who comes here looking to start arguments just because they don't like what what they are fed all day ablut "conservatives" by a mostly left-leaning news media.

So, are we getting closer to an Althouse penned (rather than Althouse endorsed) "how Obama lost me" post?

There's a good way for Obama to brush off the criticism that comes with being honored before accomplishment.

He could take the award and the money and immediately hand it over to an effective teacher who works with children who have been left behind, a extremely dedicated global poverty fighter, someone who is working in the slumbs of some major city, Rio for instance.

If Obama were to "pass the peace" he'd be applauded by a whole lot of people. If he lets go the money and gives it to someone who really has done good work, who really has accomplished a lot without any acclaim, who could use that money to transform lives... Obama would show himself a great man.

"So -after 9 months of Obama - I am still willing to praise the good things he does, and to wait and see what else he might have going. 9 months is still early. Gelroge Bush deserved the same benefit of the doubt after his first 9 months - and not the revisionist views that he did nothing about Bin Laden. And most conservatives are willing to give Obama the same benefit of time."

I don't have any numbers to back me up, but this strikes me as OBVIOUSLY not true. You can't really believe that conservatives are taking a "wait and see" attitude towards Obama. To do that you would have to :

1) Ignore everything Glenn Beck says.

2) Ignore everything Rush Limbaugh says

3) Ignore most of what Ann Althouse (who misses Bush!) says

4) Ignore everything Michael Steele says

5) Forget that "Impeachobama.org" went up the day Obama was nominated

6) Forget all that talk about secession, and "going Galt" and so on.

Which brings me back to your claim that "conservatism" is the most popular ideology these days: I bet you will now say that Rush, and Beck, and Steele, and Althouse and so on. . . do not represent your views.

I bet you will now say that Rush, and Beck, and Steele, and Althouse and so on. . . do not represent your views.

I will say that they represent some of my views, but not always in the way that I agree with they're characterization. And some of their views do not represent mine, and it's different for each commentator from one to the next, just as it's hard to believe that every liberal pundit agrees with or represents you. You have pretty much said such in the past.

But then what the fuck is a conservative, anyway?

Dude, that takes a just a little more time, and it's movie night out with the wife - leaving in 5 minutes (or when she says she's ready!).

So - if you are willing to check back here over the weekend, then I'm willing to answer it.

"Ann, you've drawn out the crazies. How dare you criticize Obama, even a little bit."

Nice try, you disingenuous conservative, but as I have said several times now, go look at ANY liberal blog right now and see criticism of Obama. Go look at what Michael Moore has said about O's Nobel Peace prize on Huffington post.

Liberals criticize Obama all the time.

It's just not of the form "Obama did/said something. . . which proves he's the worst president ever!!"

Ghandi was a brave man who stood behind his convictions. No, I don't agree with him... this is a man who told the Jews to accept the gas ovens. A foolish sentiment, but he truly accomplished something and his personal struggle is the most excellent example of what the Nobel Peace Prize stands for. But european aristocrats don't like him, so he's never won his prize. Obama's a huge celebrity, and the real point of this prize is to cause political turmoil in the USA by 'kicking' republicans.

I don't mind. It's very interesting that they have made such an extreme statement. Why shouldn't we be talking about this? They will be laughing about this 100 years from now!

Phosphorous talks about how evil Bush is, but he knows he's full of hot air... that's why he has to make up comical accusations about 'crushing children's testicles' and killing millions of 'bad people'. It's not acceptable anymore to thoughtfully compare Bush and Obama, because Obama has failed to do take a stand at all. To great extent, he's followed Bush's orders... he's increased our troops presence in the middle east and all that. He obviously in insincere and has promised to deviate from Bush's direction, but it's not clear he's ever going to.

Democrats have to attempt to mock Bush so ridiculously because they have no argument against him anymore. Obama did the same shit, even if he deviates later. You guys elected someone who kept Gitmo open, kept the renditions, kept up the unilateral bombings, etc etc etc etc.

What's so funny is how this silly euroweenie Jimmy Carter Award doesn't take itslef seriously. Surely they could have picked a couple of liberal heroes in Chinese and Iranian prisons for a few years and THEN given Obama his absolutely obvious prize... if Obama's ship wasn't sinking so fast, that is.

I'm really not sure how you get there from here. Oh, sure, suddenly you've got an actual, real-live, example of Liberals thinking something about Obama is dumb. Not something *he's* done, of course, but heck, Ace of Spades said the same thing, Althouse said it too... Obama didn't do this. No matter how they justify it the committee that awarded this prize to Obama made fools of themselves. But wow, it really is nice to see some criticism finally happening, some comedians finding some humor in the man... but honestly phos... THIS is not criticism of OBAMA, even though there has been more criticism of him lately, this is not it.

oh, and Ann, a follow up to my question above -- around minute 18 you say something to the affect of 'the fact is...he's like a child prodigy .. he has prematurely been elevated to positions he didnt deserve'. So, clearly, no person would put BO in the same category w/ E Weisel, MLK, Mandela, D. Tutu etc. So if this is one's view of the Nobel Peace Prize, then yes, he doesnt deserve it. But, in light of your statement that no one deserves the presidency, what else are you using to make this analogy to him as a child prodigy ?

Your arguments typically seem to me that you're trying to cut through other people's Obama-worship, and sometimes also Obama's cockiness. But here you seem to be piling on w/ Rush et al as Obama being an illegitimate President (i.e. child prodigy) ...

so, what gives Ann ? I cant imagine that you agree w/ people who want to delegitimize a President you voted for and for an office which he won in a fair and democratic election.

Plenty of criticism of Obama for his waffling inaction in Afghanistan, the "stimulous" bill, unemployment, trying to push "emergency" reform of how health care is provided, extra taxes, near criminal lack of understanding of basic freedom and governmental checks and balances resulting in our shameful policy toward Honduras, co-opting religious arguments rather than rational ones to push his policies, dissing Poland, cash for clunkers understanding of economics, and I'll say unemployment a second time, because it matters.

I think I've seen one person today in these comments argue that Obama knew of and wanted this award. Just one.

"Phosphorous talks about how evil Bush is, but he knows he's full of hot air... that's why he has to make up comical accusations about 'crushing children's testicles' and killing millions of 'bad people'."

I never siad he killed "millions of bad people". Go back and check. I said that you seem to think that the only people who died as a result of Bush's actions were bad people. You're the one who said that Obama's actions will result in "tremendous suffering for millions of good people." No evidence, just bare assertion. . . just liek a conservative.

as for crushing a child's testicles, don't ask me, ask John Yoo, Bush's legal counsel for much of his tenure.

But. . . am I to understand that you are AGAINSR crushing a child's testicles if that were the only way to obtain crucail information from the child's parent, a known terrorist?

It is the standard line of conservatives everywhere that "libs" worship Obama and never criticize him.

This is a lie: go check any liberal blog and you will find pointed criticism of Obama. And this has been the case for months now.

But the criticsm from the left is sane and well-argued. The criticism from the right is shrill and hysterical mostly. Conservtives immediately started talking impeachment and secession and all kinds of crazy shit. . . when as you all admit he hasn't doen anything yet, good or bad.

You are all willing to wait fifty or sixty years to see if peace breaks out in Iraq. . . and if it does, Bush will be vindicated.

Obama gets less than a year before you idiots declare his presidency a failure.

You are all a bunch of partisan hacks, I don't care how often or loudly you declare your own "ndependence of thought."

Obama gets less than a year before you idiots declare his presidency a failure.

You are all a bunch of partisan hacks, I don't care how often or loudly you declare your own "ndependence of thought."

Right, because the only independent thinkers are the ones who agree that there's no way Obama could be a failure in 9 months.

If you read carefully, you might see a lot of folks hoping he'll pull a Clinton in 2010 and realize the country isn't ready for his radicalism.

But even if you don't, it shouldn't be hard for you to realize that if one objects to what he's trying to do, Obama becomes a failure if he fails to accomplish his goals—but even more so if he succeeds.

In some cases, partisan ship. In other cases, ideological difference.

You'll find here that many who kinda-sorta supported Bush regard Part D as a failure, for example. And most regard his non-veto status and his "compassionate conservatism" failures as well.

There is one basis on which he deserve the Peace Prize: He is an American President, and since world peace is primarily maintained by America. Then, all our Presidents should be awarded it upon inauguration.

Therefore, I hereby change sides in this debate and agree with the award.

"But the criticsm from the left is sane and well-argued. The criticism from the right is shrill and hysterical mostly."

Someone with even the beginnings of self-awareness would understand that this is nothing more than "those who agree with me are sane and reasonable and those who disagree with me are shrill and hysterical."

And thank you Blake, yes... there has been a whole lot of hoping that Obama would "pull a Clinton" and moderate his policies. In fact, Obama may have done more to rehabilitate Clinton's reputation among those on the right than any other person or thing.

Also, really phos... pushing through the stimulous bill, taking over GM, and other related accomplishments hardly qualify as not having *done* anything. Obama has been busy domestically.

Phos, Bush received a whole lot of criticism from conservatives. This isn't delusion, it's the truth.

And if you're trying to contend that it's not criticism unless conservatives hated the guy and opposed him... what does it mean that you think it's so very important that liberals have been criticizing Obama?

Danielle...What happened to the President of Honduras this summer that got Obama, Clinton, Chavez and Castro and their fellow Marxist Thugs so shaken up over the last 6 months of Zelaya's legitimate term of office having been cancelled under due process of law according to that Republic's Constitution? Why are the Obamanation's closest allies so shook up over a legitimate way used legally to block a once legitimate President from faking an election to throw out the Constitutional protections of the Honduran people from being ruled by a Marxist Dictatorship for Life by that once legitimate President? Or is all of this just too weird an idea to be discussed anywhere in the Media by anyone at all?

SynovaCould you point out some sane Right Wing arguments for us? Because mostly what I hear are bullshit about 'death panels' and 'marxism' and 'our seniors will be put on a death list' and 'Obama was not born in America' and 'The Census will be used to put us in internment camps', etc.

Face it, the GOP is down right now and they are using shrill and hysterical arguments to make headlines.This is not to say the Left wasn't also shrill and hysterical when Bush was in power. But it's the Right's turn and they are not disappointing. There are some nuts on your side.

LOL Matt... yep, everything every conservative has ever said is insane. You're being quite persuasive with that tone. We have to prove otherwise, because you are so insulated you have never seen any evidence contrary.

Phos, I don't think it's possible to discuss this stuff with you. Sorry... you're a humorless sort, and you're committed in a way that just isn't fun to deal with.

Obama's ship sank so fast they had to pull a stunt as dumb as this prize. You probably don't even realize it. No biggie.

Also, really phos... pushing through the stimulous bill, taking over GM, and other related accomplishments hardly qualify as not having *done* anything. Obama has been busy domestically.

And there is some consensus among economists that his actions have somewhat softened the economic blow, preventing a deep depression and giving us just a recession.

It's always difficult to decide cause and effect in economics. . . but it's safew to say that it's too early to call his presidency a disaster.

Unless you're a conservative, apparently.

And I suppose this is just one of those issues upon which liberals and conservatives will disagree on the facts. . . but it is my recollection that Bush got very little criticism from the right, until 2006 when the GOP lost big. Then it was safe to go against him. Before that, conservative fell in line.

Rationing is a "sane" concern to any system the government is in control of... it's "sane" to view government ownership of GM as "socialism"... the Census should be as impeccably independent and separate from those in power as possible, not moved *into* the White House... Obama is supporting the preferred policies of Hugo Chavez in relationship to Honduras... birthers might not be *sane* but they are harmless... it is "sane" to recognize the broken window fallacy in Cash for Clunkers... it is "sane" to notice parallels between the staged adulation of the school children in oppressive dictatorships and wonder how Obama's supporters can be so blind to History and context... it is "sane" to instinctively understand that debt is not cured by throwing money at a problem... it is "sane" to recognize the inherent danger in trying to suppress, by redefining, free speech... and it's only *observant* to notice that the race card or racism is pulled out at every opportunity to dismiss opposition ideas even when the racism has to be imagined inside MoDo's head.

If all you hear is shrill hysteria it's because that's all that gets through when you've got your fingers shoved in your ears shouting LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.

"So, just for the record: you are ready after only nine months to declare Obama a failure?"

A failure at what?

Enacting *his* policies? I don't know if he will get anywhere with that or not. I'm hoping "not".

If by "failure" you mean "has the wrong policies, promotes the wrong things, is tragically wrong about Honduras, pisses off "unimportant" allies, lies about what policies will cost and who will pay for them, well... I'll go on record saying he is a failure right *now*.

He's got three years to "pull a Clinton" and figure out foreign policy and stop trying to get the government to take over enormous sections of our economy for the first time... I hear he's taking the time now to read up on military issues, better late than never, eh?.. so he might not be a failure in the future.

Phosphorious...Do you think that the reason Ghandi could never win was that he was fighting an Empire in a non-violent method, yet indeed he was fighting to win. While Jimmy Carter and Obama really had control over humongous violence trained men and weapons and refused to fight any Empires, either USSR, or Persian Gulf Oil States. The Norwegians only seem to respect the will to lose that is held to with great courage and considerable PR stunts to decieve the American Red Neck warrior types who until recently still had a voting majority in the USA? That's how I am seeing this great deception from Norwegians calling itself a peace loving position. IMO we had better Buckle up for world wide wars now that the USA s surrender of its role as military superpower will set nations everywhere free to engulf the Globe in violence until we have such a Crisis that it requires the UN to take over in our place. Funny how things happen these days.

"Hey Matt... what do you think of the crushing children's testicles example of sane and reasoned Liberal argument?"

Okay. . . so the story is that I'm insane for thinking that Bush would ever crush a child's testicles.

Fine. I was merely quoting what John Yoo, Bush's legal advisor who outlined a defense of the interrogation procedures (i.e. torture) that Bush did use. Yoo said that Bush had that right. But you all know that he would never do sucha thing, and I'm a crazy "lib" fro bringing it up.

Again, fine.

But I do have a question for you all:

If the US had a terrorist in custody, who knew the location of a ticking timebomb, a nuke, that would go off in New York City. . . scratch that, some city that's not full of "libs" who deserve to die. . . Dallas, say, and the only way to get that terrorists to talk was to crush the testicles of his child. . . and we know that it's the only way to get him to talk, because he's been waterboarded eighty or nonety times and hasn;t cracked (because waterboarding is really just "sprinkling water on his face"). . .

I will be accused of being snarky, but I honestly have no idea what you are saying.

I take it that you think that pacifism is a dangerously naive position that can only result in a state of total war. . . although you have a grudging respect for Gandhi's pacifism, because he had no choice; if he had had an army, he would have used it, is what I think you're saying?

And also that it's a good idea to have the US as unelected world peacekeeper, but a terribel idea for the UN to fill that role?

I understood traditionalguy to be saying that it had nothing to do with Ghandi's peaceful methods since his *goal* was victory.

Of course, maybe there is some other reason that the most iconic example in the whole world of winning and ending a conflict through peaceful means doesn't have a Nobel Peace prize.

(Maybe Arafat won because he wasn't trying for victory or to end the conflict between Palistine and Israel but drag it out forever while he pocketed even more foreign aid to leave to his wife when he died. Come to think of it, Tutu sort of hung in there forever, too, didn't he.)

"Ok, that's one conservative vote for crushing a child's testicles. So here's the follow up question: do you think Bush would have done it?"

I hope so. I hope he would crush my nuts to save thousands from the excruciating death and pain that you somehow think is better than getting your nuts crushed which would leave you virtually unharmed afterward.

We are talking about a horrible death for thousands including children, burned to death slowly in schools. You'd opt for that?

SynovaSo it's 'sane' to continue with the current health care insurance mess we have now - when the rest of the civilized world has a better [less expensive] system - and better life expectancy [we rank around #50]. If 'rationing' were such a problem then Canada wouldn't rank #10 on that list.What's wrong with the government having a stake in GM? Are you opposed to buying American? Are you opposed to the government trying to insure jobs for people in this tough economic time?I think it is sane to follow the rule of law as is the case in Honduras. Chavez may agree but so do most of the world leaders!Cash for Clunkers was a success, actually. Lots of people got good deals. Are they complaining? Why are you? I agree tax money should not go to some banks and financial institutions. But if they go back to people that's not so bad.

Have you seen 'Jesus Camp' where kids pray and cry for a cardboard cutout of GW Bush? Yeah, it's nuts. In general though why is it wrong for kids to show respect for the President? You are making the 'Hitler' argument. That is shrill.

What plans do you [and your side] have for solving the debt. Higher taxes would solve it but I know you don't support that. Ending wars? No you probably don't support that either. Hmmm. Ahh yes, sending the elderly into the streets by ending social security and medicare? And making parents of children pay for private schools? And closing national parks. And making all highways privately owned toll roads? Anything else? How about privatizing the police and fire departments?

Who is suppressing free speech? You are not being serious. No one can stop the right or the left from some of the shit they say. No one should try and no one is. But calling out one side or the other to be honest and to stop lying is not free speech suppression.

The race card. Hmmm. Well when Rush says Colin Powell only voted for Obama because he is black... Who is playing with race? Although I will agree the race card is played by the left. So is the gender card.

"We could just take his child to N.Y., but then he would gladly sacrifice his kid, nuts and all.

Silly question."

It is a silly question, isn't it. Believing that someone who would blow up New York would talk to save his or her own kid is irrational. It probably wouldn't even be worth the bother of setting up a deception and making the terrorist *believe* that his kid was getting tortured.

Of course "torture" as a concept is so watered down that even deception is against the rules anymore.

"We are talking about a horrible death for thousands including children, burned to death slowly in schools. You'd opt for that?

I'm just trying to understand?"

Yes we are talking about exactly that, and this is exactly why I did not vote for Bush: there was no limit to what violence he would inflict in the name of "protecting America." And forget the fact that he was mostly incompetent. I would have voted against him if it were in fact the case that tortueing a child was the only way to keep us safe.

Now. . . before you jump all over me for being "dangerously naive" and an "America hating peacnik", let me aks you. . .

Would you abort the child of a terrorist if that was the only way to get him to talk?

"It is a silly question, isn't it. Believing that someone who would blow up New York would talk to save his or her own kid is irrational. It probably wouldn't even be worth the bother of setting up a deception and making the terrorist *believe* that his kid was getting tortured.

Of course "torture" as a concept is so watered down that even deception is against the rules anymore."

It's no sillier than thinking that someone who would nuke Dallas (we're not using NYC, remember, too many "libs") would not be willing to sacrifice his own life, or to be willing to undergo a bit of waterboarding (which isn't even torture, right?)

And just for the record. . . your answer is that it is logically possible for the situation to arise, and so it's silly to even think about it.

"Would you abort the child of a terrorist if that was the only way to get him to talk?

I'm pro choice, and his dad made the choice.

But, I am stunned at your willingness to choose to come on on line the next day reading about the horrors. Thousands of personal stories of terrible suffering and death of innocents. This would go on for months, and the city would be ruined for generations, not to mention the thousands who would be killed by our military in retribution somewhere, but its all worth it because one child kept his nuts. Good choice.

Matt... You're associating what you believe with "sane" and what you don't believe with "not-sane". How does that definition work? Can someone be "sane" and wrong (in your opinion) or not?

And *again*... our life expectancy is so low because we count live births honestly and because of violent deaths in some demographic groups... neither of which have anything whatsoever to do with the quality of health care in this country. Indeed, survival rates for "curable" cancer in the US are far far better than in England (for one example.)

The rush to do something, as if *anything* would be better than what we have now is irrational.

And *yes* I think that the government having a stake in GM is very bad as is any other assumption of the means of production by government. That you think this is grand is irrelevant.

Ah, this "conservatism" is such a slippery positon! Because of course Bush was unwilling to sacrifice a few embryos in order to possibly cure variosu diseases and prevent all kinds of misery and death. The pro-life position, as I understand it, is that it is NEVER acceptable to sacrifice innocent life so that good may come of it.

I suppose different conservatives have different interpretations.

Does it bother you that Bush, being pro-life, would not have aborted a terrorist's baby?

It is a silly question, isn't it. Believing that someone who would blow up New York would talk to save his or her own kid is irrational.

Yes, it is. It's so silly that Phosphorius could have rebutted it with one nut tied behind his back. Which, I suppose, is why he simply let it stand unanswered instead.

As for Bagoh20's response about offering his own testicles in order to save New York (which, I note, is a procedure that he seems to think would leave one significantly less debilitated than others might think), I'm not sure even I would attempt to interpret that one. But I guess it is touching to know that he would sacrifice himself in a ghastly miscarriage of justice simply for the unassured prospect of saving so many other lives. Not sure how much utility I would find in this game of "nuts for cities" chicken. But the symbolism of it is as interesting, and touching, as it is strange and intriguing.

You got no standing to argue the ticking-bomb scenario, none whatsoever.

The anti-torture Bush-is-evil crowd never was anti-torture at all... they just wanted it on the hush-hush so we could keep our public hands clean... show a good example...

Now, sure, maybe you're astute enough to recognize that Matt Damon and some lauded former CIA officer war-on-terrorism, anti-torture critic of the administration are both ignorant morons... but they were hardly alone in viewing the public face of our nation more important than truth and integrity.

Your hypotheticals are irrelevant and desiring legal clarification is arguably a president's JOB.

But it *looked* bad and could be spun as a desire to use torture and looking bad is more important than truth... to some. Don't codify it... don't make clear to your people what they can and can't do, what is authorized and what is not... just expect them to break the law to keep you safe and then to take the punishment for the sake of our national honor.

I think it's obscene.

Damon: ”Look, the best line about torture I’ve heard came from [retired CIA officer turned war-on-terrorism critic] Milt Beardon,” Damon says. “He said, `If a guy knows where a dirty bomb is hidden that’s going to go off in a Marriott, put me in a room with him and I’ll find out. But don’t codify that. Just let me break the law.’

“Which I think is right. You can’t legalize torture. But anybody would do it in that situation. You’d do it to me in that situation; you’d pull out my fingernails if you thought I knew something like that.”

Instead of leaving the troops without any body armor, the right should have just taken a cue from Bagoh20 and shielded our soldiers everywhere except for a gaping, conspicuous unprotected area right about the groin. The generals would have led them into battle with their "equipment" dangling open in the wind. Just for a show of bravery. Or something.

"Because of course Bush was unwilling to sacrifice a few embryos in order to possibly cure variosu diseases and prevent all kinds of misery and death."

bagoh already said it but... Bush did not make embryonic stem cell research illegal. He just reserved tax dollars to research that used certain already existing embryonic stem cell lines and would not use our tax money on new ones.

But caring about that means caring about being accurate and factual and all that boring stuff.

It's funny, I've heard these ticking bomb scenarios forever and the anti-torture side never admits to choosing to let thousands die horribly to avoid hurting someone, even if just waterboarding in needed.

Instead they do what Monatna just did, deflect with a joke, or assume they the victims would just get lucky somehow, or just keep asking questions, like Phos, but never take responsibility for their position and say: "I so hate torture that I would let thousands be tortured and killed to avoid hurting one person, even the perpetrator."

It's funny, I've heard these ticking bomb scenarios forever and the anti-torture side never admits to choosing to let thousands die horribly to avoid hurting someone, even if just waterboarding in needed.

Instead they do what Monatna just did, deflect with a joke, or assume they the victims would just get lucky somehow, or just keep asking questions, like Phos, but never take responsibility for their position and say: "I so hate torture that I would let thousands be tortured and killed to avoid hurting one person, even the perpetrator."

No. Actually, (and unlike Synova and others on the right - of whom the former simply deflected with all the moral force of a tu quoque involving Matt Damon), Bagoh20 takes a clear position, and deserves credit for it. Especially so given the strange and graphic trade-off he oh so unambiguously offered as a response.

But of course, this doesn't get us to the efficacy portion of the argument - which I suppose is just an afterthought to the ideologues and others unpersuaded by pragmatism and undeterred by reason.

So, phos... if the only way to do it was crunch some little kid's testicles and it was YOUR decision...

How would you chose? To let a many thousands of people die horribly and spend your life in volunteer work in hospitals taking care of radiation sickness and disease... or would you torture the kid and save them all?

I'll go to bed now, safe in the knowledge that our new commander in chief will, if needed, do whatever nastiness is required to not be the President that let N.Y. city's children be burned alive. He will do that, because has the job and not the luxury to simply talk about it. In this regard I think he would be more ruthless than Bush. It does not take experience to see the clarity of that decision when it's you that has to make it. This is about the only decision I trust him with. Sleep tight.

I doubt he's for it. He clearly stated his political sympathies and is offering this Socratic dialogue in order to point out what are clearly unanswered inconsistencies and ambiguities in the governing values of the right.

But honestly... I just can't see the scenario happening. Firstly, because waterboarding does tend to work and why wouldn't it? And don't we have drugs of any sort?

Setting aside impossible scenarios, the idea that we might have a "ticking bomb" situation and have the person responsible in custody... I would prefer that those doing the interrogation have clear regulations, supervision, and review that *yes* allowed them to get the information. And I want our real policy to be *more* restrictive than what the public, other nations, and criminals and terrorists are allowed to believe is true. I want rumors of secret rooms and perfect drugs to create the assurance in any mind of what will happen if they *don't* tell and tell quickly.

The last thing I want is for our President to assure the world that even the CIA is following the freaking Army Field Manual that was designed to guide untrained interrogators in a war zone. Why not just pass it out to the bad guys so they can study up, huh?

Or are we, like Damon, assuming that Obama is lying and that we really *do* torture... we just say we don't?

As for your claim that the "anti-torture left" were really motivated by a desire to look good rather than to be good. . . if the only proof you have to offer is Matt Damon, then this conversation can't really go any further. . .

But look. . . we're drifting here: I said that Bush was willing to crush testicles, and you called me silly for bringing it up. Now you claim that testicle crushing is exactly the right thing to do.

"and is offering this Socratic dialogue in order to point out what are clearly unanswered inconsistencies and ambiguities in the governing values of the right."

So what... Socratic dialog is another way of never having to defend your own point of view?

Maybe he should be concerned about the clearly unanswered inconsistencies of the governing values of the left. After all... taking care of your own house first before nagging others about theirs would seem to be a virtue.

It's always interesting to watch a new liberal come on the Althouse blog. They always some with assumptions pre-loaded. They don't want to engage, they want to attack. They want to prove their moral superiority. However, the language they use (plenty of f-bombs) and the way they express themselves always does just the opposite.

But he did point out that the left is clearly comfortable with openly airing their grievances with Obama in a cogent, debate-friendly fashion.

And of course, just 'cause I can't resist, I will offer my political analysis of the moment. And it's not just mine, but one echoed by others:

The problem is that the right has become so obsessed with "the enemy" that they have difficulty defining their values in any manner that doesn't pose them as a contrast to what others believe.

There is an obsession with unity and uniformity that has become politically unhealthy and counterproductive. The left has hit upon that. And they found someone who can do it more effectively than anyone the right can find to effectively counter this theme.

Phosphorius has thankfully gotten some of those that are sympathetic to some of the strongest policy elements on the right to engage what they believe in the format of actual arguments. But he had to do that by first coming up with interesting counterfactuals and hypotheticals that I wouldn't have even thought to bother with. He deserves credit for that.

Because honestly, the lack of oxygen that this place had seen from focusing on emotive and confrontational bullshit had become so intense, that I stopped seeing a point in engaging rationally.

One rightie above talks nonsense about "brooking sentiment". The phrase is actually "brooking dissent". This says something that the right took sentiment as a substitute for dissent, which connotes cogent, and somewhat objective disagreement. "Sentiment" is something else altogether.

It was as if bile had become an excuse for an argument. I guess if you're going to puncture bile, you have to be pretty witty to find a way to do that.

A lie. You've no idea what Bush was willing to do. You've made this up and pretended it was true.

"and you called me silly for bringing it up."

I called you "shrill and hysterical" or at least the equivalent of "death panels" or "killing granny". Which it is.

"Now you claim that testicle crushing is exactly the right thing to do."

I never did. I said it was a stupid and impossible scenario. Bagoh said that (pretending the stupid and impossible scenario actually was possible instead of fantasy) that one life, no matter how innocent, was worth the lives of thousands... also innocent.

While you seem to think that your moral purity is more valuable than the lives of thousands of children and their painful and horrific end.

Maybe he should be concerned about the clearly unanswered inconsistencies of the governing values of the left. After all... taking care of your own house first before nagging others about theirs would seem to be a virtue.

Well, the big difference would be defining one's views on the basis of reason and not constantly assuming that everyone who has a different perspective than you can't work constructively with you.

It's not the left that was in a position to decide to rigidly enforce standards of ideological/partisan purity and define what it means for America to lead the world in what buffoons such as Buford Gulch might prefer to think of as "short answer"/yes-no format. The world is too complex for him and morality is an issue of black and white. Always and forever. No ifs ands or buts.

If you guys want to continue demanding ideological purity and intellectual conformity then you can continue not caring about whether the greatest portion of the country can actually relate to you on a pragmatic basis.

Or the world, for that matter. But I guess you've already written them off long ago.

But in the meantime, it looks like the pointy-headed intellecshualls will win elections, a capacity for America to win more friends than enemies, and a reasoned way to approach policy debates.

This comes from something other than an a greater interest than winning than in leading. At some point leading becomes an exercise in something other than ceaselessly beating your view into the ground.

If I interpret your question correctly, then my answer would be perhaps. But that was years ago. Your perspective of the left's ability to engage is stuck in the nineties, which was a reflection of arguments from earlier times. The right thinks they can continue defining the left in terms of the cold war and other anachronisms. But they're the conservatives. They're the ones who might stand to ask themselves why they want to believe that times haven't changed, when everyone around them seems to think they have. When history seems to think they have.

Islamic terrorists are not communists and the left was confronted by a political party and mindset so stultified that they could define themselves in terms of rationality. And the electorate went with it.

Change might be scary (especially for you guys), but the rest of the country will get used to it. And then it will become the status quo and you guys will have to co-opt it. Again.

But that will take a while. Political cycles are long and slow and don't rotate from major shifts in power overnight.

"If I interpret your question correctly, then my answer would be perhaps. But that was years ago."

I'm pretty sure it was just two weeks ago that Amanda Marcotte (?) was having a hissy fit and telling conservatives they weren't allowed to care about rape.

I think that's a pretty strong indication of needing to define your own side as what the other side is not. The horror, really... how to chose? Side with conservatives or give up rape as an issue... I can see how that would be tough.

Feminists were concerned with women's rights in Afghanistan as well... up until 2002.

Hey, I'd love it if everyone could have reasonable conversations... not accuse people of racism because they want smaller government... that sort of thing. Talking is good.

"Change might be scary (especially for you guys), but the rest of the country will get used to it. And then it will become the status quo and you guys will have to co-opt it. Again."

MUL, that's the definition of conservative. Progressives and radicals introduce change... conservatives go into damage control mode... when the kinks are mostly worked out what remains is proven and it becomes status quo and conservatives co-opt it.

Change *is* scary, particularly when presented as good in it's own right and without risks. People who don't worry about breaking things are scary because they do not seem thoughtful or aware of systems and connections and consequences.

It is rather disheartening, though, to see people go on to the next shiny thing and leave what is good behind... things like individual liberties and human rights based on being human, no matter where you were born, free speech and defending creative freedom, opposing tyrants and being willing to make moral judgments and stand up and defend the helpless.

If you want to find voices on the left that aren't so shrill (and they are only becoming more numerous), you might want to avoid Marcotte and others who are stuck fighting yesterday's battles.

The Bush years gave us a whole new, wide-open field - chock full of actions and decisions that could be debated in terms of the wisdom behind recent policies, the animating spirit behind different approaches to patriotism, etc.

Feminists don't tend to focus on the things that Marcotte debates anymore. They seem to have moved on to boring discussions regarding work-life balance and the like.

And when he does come up with a response to something - it's usually an argument someone else came up with. Some watered-down plagiarism of the newest garbage in the Voice of Narcissistic Conservatism.

But he is RICH! (Or so he says). So he thinks this entitles him to say and believe things without being able to make a rational point.

Much like how the GOP came to feel.

Words confuse him. If the idea can't be expressed in the form of a sound-bite, it shouldn't exist.

But most people, if they don't think like this, have stopped trusting morons who do to lead them.

Machos doesn't care, though. He has money and he thinks this will save his political backers from oblivion. But it won't.

It's really too bad that the one thing money can't buy is brains. Then Machos might have some usefulness left to others in this world.

OK, now hold on a second. Are you trying to tell me we have to tie a bow down on our president?

No. I will not do that.

But srsly, one time I chanced upon an extremely intense right-wing scare chamber, by an error in my search, I was looking for somebody else and ended up finding David Horowitz and his site "Discover the Networks." It was interesting. I spent a little bit of time over there. He has a bug up his bum about liberals and has collected biographies on a lot of people by various authorship and he attempts to demonstrate how they're connected. He categorizes people and institutions. Ranks them. He talked about the Nobel prizes and totally trashed them. I must say, his damaging expose deeply affected my malleable and impressionable mind. Ever since then I have not been able to look at those the same. I used to keep up strictly for crossword solving purposes, they are a favorite category for constructors along with all the other important awards. Things like this tend to demonstrate to me that mean ol' scary David Horowitz wasn't just blowing smoke.

Lem, you're ok, Dude. Everything's going to be fine. Now, if that nice little Machos guy could just walk you over to the bathroom, lean your head over the side of the toilet, keep you from puking on me... well, everything will work out great. He will tend to your hangover in the morning.